Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA17572 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA06019 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:01:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/11/99 - 06/12/99 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:00:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC175375174" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC175375174 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Offs (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=22?=) email hiccup (Chuck Cox) --Next_Part_SYNC175375174 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail-out-0.tiac.net ([199.0.65.247]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC1726742AF for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:41:27 -0400 Received: from mail-out-3.tiac.net (mail-out-3.tiac.net [199.0.65.15]) by mail-out-0.tiac.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA31441 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:42:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from drbeer at doctorbeer.com) Received: from drbeer (p219.block1.tc4.state.MA.tiac.com [206.119.45.220]) by mail-out-3.tiac.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA23229 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:42:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from drbeer at doctorbeer.com) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990610222624.00849850 at pop.tiac.net> X-Sender: drbeer at pop.tiac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:26:24 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=22?= Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Judge Offs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message >I would like to raise a judging issue for serious discussion. I think we >should change the way we do taste-offs in competitions for multiple-flight categories. >- The re-ranking of the beers is often quick and in any event is not as >thorough as the initial scoring. It does not take into account the careful >work already done by the scoring judges. >- More often than not, and in part due to the first two points, the winner >is NOT one of the ones scored highest at either table. I've seen a #3 And here is the rub. Based on 13 years as a judge and competition organizer even if you went ahead and had judges do full blown second round score sheets, the orders would be different as often as not. >- The taste-off MUST take into account the scoring. Moreover, the ONLY beers that should be considered for first place overall ought to be the ones receiving the high scores in the scoring flight. Then the other #1 and the #2 ought to be considered for second. And so on. I see no rationale for this. The fallacious assumption of this is that there is something sacred about the scores the judges gave in the first round. They are subject to as much variation and capriciousness as would be evident in a full blown second round scoring. >From an organizational perspective I do see a lot of advantages of post round judge offs without score sheets (reduced time, reduction in jubgepower requirement since there is no need to have a full judging). There is nothing sacred about the first round scores. They represent a weeding out process which separates the better quality beers from lesser ones, and generates feedback for all. Subsequent ranking by judges representing each of the initial panels insures some consistency in doing the final ranking to generate assigned scores. I don't see any thing wrong with a push to use fresh bottles for this though keep in mind that the beer can vary from bottle to bottle, that is something that should be done more often. The only approach I could see that might really be better would be to do a full second round scoring with different judges, then for those beers passed to the second round use the average of the scores from all judges first and second round. The rationale behind this is that the larger the sample size judging the beer the more reliable the result. In the end organizers will do what they see fit. The BJCP has no specifications about how to organize judging, and based on my past experiences I would bet that trying to do so would be problematic. Jay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's --Next_Part_SYNC175375174 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from smtp1-alterdial.uu.net ([192.48.96.22]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC17387498C for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:38:14 -0400 Received: from conjunto by smtp1-alterdial.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: 1Cust134.tnt1.cambridge.ma.da.uu.net [208.252.164.134]) id QQgtdq18806 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:38:50 GMT Message-Id: <4.1.19990611095347.00c108c0 at mail59367.popserver.pop.net> X-Sender: mail59367 at mail59367.popserver.pop.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:12:06 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Chuck Cox Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: email hiccup Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message There was a slight hiccup with our email system, but I think everything is OK now. If any email to synchro.com bounced or disappeared last week, please resend it. We were changing servers and there was a typo in the new MX record. This was exacerbated by the fact that I was away, co-driving my first pro rally, and didn't catch the problem for a few days. Yes, we finished, took 1st & 3rd in class in the divisionals and 7th in the national, despite losing oil pressure and brakes. Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you how it feels to lose your brakes on a forest road at 90 mph. Obligatory beer content: Our team owner prefers racing in Canada because even in the small towns we race in, he can buy cases of La Fin du Monde and Tres Pistoles for the crew. Anybody know of a brewery that wants to sponsor an extreme racing team that likes Belgian-style ales? -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems Hopped/Up Racing Team --Next_Part_SYNC175375174-- Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA17572 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA06019 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:01:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/11/99 - 06/12/99 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:00:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC175375174" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC175375174 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Offs (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=22?=) email hiccup (Chuck Cox) --Next_Part_SYNC175375174 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail-out-0.tiac.net ([199.0.65.247]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC1726742AF for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:41:27 -0400 Received: from mail-out-3.tiac.net (mail-out-3.tiac.net [199.0.65.15]) by mail-out-0.tiac.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA31441 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:42:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from drbeer at doctorbeer.com) Received: from drbeer (p219.block1.tc4.state.MA.tiac.com [206.119.45.220]) by mail-out-3.tiac.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA23229 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:42:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from drbeer at doctorbeer.com) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990610222624.00849850 at pop.tiac.net> X-Sender: drbeer at pop.tiac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:26:24 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=22?= Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Judge Offs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message >I would like to raise a judging issue for serious discussion. I think we >should change the way we do taste-offs in competitions for multiple-flight categories. >- The re-ranking of the beers is often quick and in any event is not as >thorough as the initial scoring. It does not take into account the careful >work already done by the scoring judges. >- More often than not, and in part due to the first two points, the winner >is NOT one of the ones scored highest at either table. I've seen a #3 And here is the rub. Based on 13 years as a judge and competition organizer even if you went ahead and had judges do full blown second round score sheets, the orders would be different as often as not. >- The taste-off MUST take into account the scoring. Moreover, the ONLY beers that should be considered for first place overall ought to be the ones receiving the high scores in the scoring flight. Then the other #1 and the #2 ought to be considered for second. And so on. I see no rationale for this. The fallacious assumption of this is that there is something sacred about the scores the judges gave in the first round. They are subject to as much variation and capriciousness as would be evident in a full blown second round scoring. >From an organizational perspective I do see a lot of advantages of post round judge offs without score sheets (reduced time, reduction in jubgepower requirement since there is no need to have a full judging). There is nothing sacred about the first round scores. They represent a weeding out process which separates the better quality beers from lesser ones, and generates feedback for all. Subsequent ranking by judges representing each of the initial panels insures some consistency in doing the final ranking to generate assigned scores. I don't see any thing wrong with a push to use fresh bottles for this though keep in mind that the beer can vary from bottle to bottle, that is something that should be done more often. The only approach I could see that might really be better would be to do a full second round scoring with different judges, then for those beers passed to the second round use the average of the scores from all judges first and second round. The rationale behind this is that the larger the sample size judging the beer the more reliable the result. In the end organizers will do what they see fit. The BJCP has no specifications about how to organize judging, and based on my past experiences I would bet that trying to do so would be problematic. Jay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's --Next_Part_SYNC175375174 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from smtp1-alterdial.uu.net ([192.48.96.22]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC17387498C for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:38:14 -0400 Received: from conjunto by smtp1-alterdial.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: 1Cust134.tnt1.cambridge.ma.da.uu.net [208.252.164.134]) id QQgtdq18806 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:38:50 GMT Message-Id: <4.1.19990611095347.00c108c0 at mail59367.popserver.pop.net> X-Sender: mail59367 at mail59367.popserver.pop.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:12:06 -0400 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Chuck Cox Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: email hiccup Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message There was a slight hiccup with our email system, but I think everything is OK now. If any email to synchro.com bounced or disappeared last week, please resend it. We were changing servers and there was a typo in the new MX record. This was exacerbated by the fact that I was away, co-driving my first pro rally, and didn't catch the problem for a few days. Yes, we finished, took 1st & 3rd in class in the divisionals and 7th in the national, despite losing oil pressure and brakes. Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you how it feels to lose your brakes on a forest road at 90 mph. Obligatory beer content: Our team owner prefers racing in Canada because even in the small towns we race in, he can buy cases of La Fin du Monde and Tres Pistoles for the crew. Anybody know of a brewery that wants to sponsor an extreme racing team that likes Belgian-style ales? -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems Hopped/Up Racing Team --Next_Part_SYNC175375174--